Exactly why does Canon need to "fight back" on full frame cameras? The 5DIII and the 6D are both absolutely crushing their Nikon equivalents in sales.

Do you buy your camera equipment according to their sales figures?

My purchases are directed by my needs as a photographer. I did not buy the 5DIII after extensive testing - because it just did not bring anything useful to me. So for my money Canon will have to "fight back" or my next DSLR will not be a Canon unless I have a 5DII break down. Simple as that.

YMMV.

What would you consider a "fighting back" feature? As far as I can see the only thing the 5D MkIII doesn't do significantly better than the 5D MkII is low iso shadows, even then it is better, just not significantly better. And seeing as how the "best" competitors are only performing a stop or so better in this one metric I'd like to know what you, personally, would like from Canon. Also, what are you shooting that negates every other improvement in the MkIII over the MkII.

Logged

Too often we lose sight of the fact that photography is about capturing light, if we have the ability to take control of that light then we grow exponentially as photographers. More often than not the image is not about lens speed, sensor size, MP's or AF, it is about the light.

Exactly why does Canon need to "fight back" on full frame cameras? The 5DIII and the 6D are both absolutely crushing their Nikon equivalents in sales.

Do you buy your camera equipment according to their sales figures?

My purchases are directed by my needs as a photographer. I did not buy the 5DIII after extensive testing - because it just did not bring anything useful to me. So for my money Canon will have to "fight back" or my next DSLR will not be a Canon unless I have a 5DII break down. Simple as that.

YMMV.

What would you consider a "fighting back" feature? As far as I can see the only thing the 5D MkIII doesn't do significantly better than the 5D MkII is low iso shadows, even then it is better, just not significantly better. And seeing as how the "best" competitors are only performing a stop or so better in this one metric I'd like to know what you, personally, would like from Canon. Also, what are you shooting that negates every other improvement in the MkIII over the MkII.

Exactly.

And, no I don't buy anything based on sales figures. But I also don't presume my individual preferences determine a company's strategy. The statement that Canon needs to "fight back" implies they are losing some sort of competition and I pointed to their sales figures because they indicate just the opposite; and ultimately that is the only competition that really matters.

It's perfectly understandable to state that you were comfortable with your 5DII and for your purposes the current generation of full frame cameras didn't offer enough improvement to justify trading up. But, there is a world of difference between that statement and concluding that Canon needs to fight back.

Anxiously awaiting the 7D2, hoping that it will be "1DX-lite" AF (fewer points needed) with f/8 AF, better high ISO performance, and 8-10 fps with really deep RAW buffer, 30 RAW would be nice.

ART, what? Sigma? What'shisname that posts here? Oh, THAT art......... I am having a little fun with a haul of used photo books (monographs and curated multi-photographer exhibits) that just showed up at my local bookstore. Good rainy day occupation.

Exactly why does Canon need to "fight back" on full frame cameras? The 5DIII and the 6D are both absolutely crushing their Nikon equivalents in sales.

Do you buy your camera equipment according to their sales figures?

My purchases are directed by my needs as a photographer. I did not buy the 5DIII after extensive testing - because it just did not bring anything useful to me. So for my money Canon will have to "fight back" or my next DSLR will not be a Canon unless I have a 5DII break down. Simple as that.

YMMV.

What would you consider a "fighting back" feature? As far as I can see the only thing the 5D MkIII doesn't do significantly better than the 5D MkII is low iso shadows, even then it is better, just not significantly better. And seeing as how the "best" competitors are only performing a stop or so better in this one metric I'd like to know what you, personally, would like from Canon. Also, what are you shooting that negates every other improvement in the MkIII over the MkII.

Exactly.

And, no I don't buy anything based on sales figures. But I also don't presume my individual preferences determine a company's strategy. The statement that Canon needs to "fight back" implies they are losing some sort of competition and I pointed to their sales figures because they indicate just the opposite; and ultimately that is the only competition that really matters.

It's perfectly understandable to state that you were comfortable with your 5DII and for your purposes the current generation of full frame cameras didn't offer enough improvement to justify trading up. But, there is a world of difference between that statement and concluding that Canon needs to fight back.

Maybe then these forums could finally ditch the persistent Nikon fanatics and actually have some more interesting conversations for once. Maybe about ART, rather than technology.

With all due respect (which is plenty, …for your many informative posts about technology , "Canon Rumors" is the place for art-rather-than-technology discussions because, …?

Because that's what cameras are all about...making photographic art. Sure, it's a piece of technology, but they aren't designed to be collectors items that we obsess over the technical details of...just for the sake of obsessing over technical details.

Cameras are the engines of photonic artforms. The technology is just a means to an end...and while I'm the first to stand up and correct the discussion when someone starts spouting missleading factoids, that isn't really what we should be worried about. We should be concerned with the ACTUAL outcomes.

In that respect...the actual outcomes of pretty much all cameras on the planet these days put the vast majority of film-era photography to shame. Higher resolution, better color, better moments, better everything. We obsess over the technology so much these days that it's to the detriment of our art. Notice that I haven't been around quite as much lately? I'm trying to put more of my time into the art, instead of into debates about the technology.

(I've always been interested in astrophotography, and I'm very good at imaging the moon, but I've recently taken the deep dive into full blown wide field deep sky astrophotography. It's the most amazing, intriguing, beautiful...and concurrently complex, technical, and TIME CONSUMING form of photography I've ever seen. The depth and complexity of our night sky is just...amazing, and I really have to focus to make any headway. I struggle with technology...DSLRs, as much as Canon DSLRs specifically (especially the 350D and 450D, modded for high Ha sensitivity or even monochrome use) are used in astrophotography, are so woefully inadequate for the job. But the technology is only part of it. The rest is the artistic aspect. Once you've dealt with all the technical aspects, set up your mount, calibrated it, pointed it at an interesting nebula, and exposed dozens or hundreds of frames...then you have to turn all that technical data into a piece of artwork...and THAT is truly the most difficult part. I may spend 8 hours gathering data, and days processing it. So...maybe art is just on my mind these days. )

I spent a lot of time on these forums...and while I am happy to admit I don't know everything, I do know some things extremely well. I'm happy to have helped educate you guys to some of the oft-misunderstood facts about the technology that supports your art, and help you formulate more realistic hopes for future technology. But...these days, it's all the same old debate: "Nikon has more DR! Sony has more DR! Canon must suck!" Same old debate. There are still those who think that ISO 100 DR is the only thing that matters for IQ, when demonstrably, significantly fewer people shoot at ISO 100 than shoot at ISO 400 and up, where DR differences are minimal to meaningless. Canon technology does exceptionally well at higher ISO, and the rest of their non-sensor technology (not the least of which are their lenses) is superior to most every other option out there with a few rare exceptions (i.e. the Otus).

Just kind of tired of saying the same old thing, usually to the same old thick-headed, stubborn individuals, and not having the message sink in. (Especially when their responses demonstrate the most blatant and extensive ignorance...I'm constantly asking myself: "Geeze...I have to explain it AGAIN? How can I explain it differently, how can I dumb it down enough, that they might actually GET it this time?" Then I realize that they are probably just over-invested trolls...and try to go back to my processing...) Personally, I think it would be a nice change of pace for the lagging aspects of Canon technology to no longer be an issue, and instead start talking about how to use the technology Canon (and others, like Adobe) are giving us to make better art.

Because...if were not using our cameras to make AWESOME, MIND BLOWING ART, the kind of art that makes people stop and go: WWOOOWW! ......what's the point?

(Mind you, I do not consider myself that kind of artist yet...I think I have some good works, but I know that I have a LONG way to go before I can create the kind of work that really gives people pause and reason to meditate on the images they see. I need to spend a LOT more time with my camera and lens to learn what needs to be learned to become an expert or master of the art. It would be nice to discuss the nuances of the art, though...to discuss technique and vision and aesthetics....rather than technology...just for once.)

BTW, if you want some WOWs...try this guy out: Deep Sky Colors I think he may just be the best astrophotographer on the planet...he does huge mosaics with the deepest exposures, with the richest colors, taken under the darkest skies on earth, the guy will drive over 7000 miles just to produce one mosaic...and every single one of his images just blows my mind so much I'm not even able to utter the word "wow". It's just. Mind. Blown. No words.

^^ This is my goal. If I can become skilled enough to make just one image that compares to this guys work before I die....then I'll die a happy photographer.

I'd like to be wrong.... but I fear Canon might disappoint many who desire f/8 AF, Foveon type or other radical sensor design, or 4k video all tech that could match the wow factor that the 5d2 and 7dc had when they came out... They seem to have been quite conservative since then. There have been many incremental improvements (like the 5d3/1dx over their predecessors, Dual Pixel AF) ; but Canon enthusiasts are waiting for a "wow" factor announcement.

Wired Ethernet is dead. Even laptop manufacturers are dropping it. Better to use something modern like a Thunderbolt port that can support mini-DisplayPort, HDMI, Ethernet, etc. all in one tiny connector (with appropriate adapters).

I agree with you 100%. My biggest weakness in sports photography is composition. I feel like things get moving too quickly and I can't compose the way I want to and even in post, when cropping, I still struggle with composition. I'm a scientist by training and I feel as though I focus too much on the technical aspects of shutter speed, aperture, ISO, DOF, etc. that any art form is hopelessly lost. Hopefully that is something I can change.